In Tennessee, the relationship between an employer and an employee
is described as an at-will relationship. That means that in Tennessee
an employee-at-will may be discharged for good cause, bad cause,
or no cause at all, without being guilty of an illegal wrong.
Either the employer or the employee may terminate the relationship
at will. Generally speaking, absent discrimination or wrongful
discharge an employee has no legal recourse if terminated by their
employer. However, over the years, the courts in Tennessee have
made exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine in certain
areas.

In Tennessee, our courts have recognized the cause of action
to prevent an employer for utilizing retaliatory discharge as
a device to defeat the rights of employees under the Workers'
Compensation Law. If an employee is discharged for pursuing or
claiming entitlement to workers' compensation benefits, the employee
has a cause of action for damages. To establish a cause of action
for discharge or for retaliation for asserting a workers' compensation
claim, an employee must show (1) that he/she was an employee of
their employer at the time of injury; (2) the employee made a
claim against the employer for workers' compensation benefits;
(3) the employer terminated the employee's employment; and (4)
the claim for workers' compensation benefits was a substantial
factor in the employer's motivation to terminate the employee's
employment. The burden of proof rests upon the employee to prove
elements of the cause of action, including a causal relationship
between the claim for workers' compensation benefits and termination
of employment. Proof of discharge without evidence of a causal
relationship between the claim for benefits and discharge will
not present an issue for a jury.

Tennessee also has a Human Rights Act which prohibits discrimination
in employment, public accommodations and housing. The Act prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, sex,
age or national origin in connection with employment, public accommodations,
and because of race, color, creed, religion, sex or national origin
in connection with housing. If an employee is discharged in violation
of the Tennessee Human Rights Act, he or she may be awarded damages
including reinstatement with back pay, compensatory damages and,
if appropriate, front pay, punitive damages and attorney's fees.
The language of the Tennessee Human Rights Act essentially tracks
the provisions of the federal statute prohibiting discrimination
and offers remedies very similar to the federal statute (Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act).

There are other regulatory employment statutes such as the Tennessee
Occupational Safety and Health Act which contains provisions prohibiting
an employer for firing an employee for availing himself/herself
of the protective features of the statute, including filing a
charge or a complaint.

In 1990, the Tennessee legislature passed the Public Protection
Act of 1990 which, among other things, helps insulate smokers
from discharge for smoking. The Act provides that employees shall
not be discharged or terminated solely for participating or engaging
in the use of an agricultural product so long as the employee
participates or engages in such use in a manner which complies
with all applicable policies regarding such use during time at
which such employee is working. What the Act provides is that
it is unlawful for an employer to discharge an employee solely
for participating or engaging in the use of an agricultural product.
However, for an employee to be subject to the protection of this
Act he or she must comply with any policy the employer has restricting
or totally prohibiting the use of agricultural products including
tobacco during times at which such employee is working. An employer
is free under the Act to restrict the use of tobacco to certain
areas of the workplace or to totally ban the use of tobacco at
work. The employer may not terminate an employee solely for using
agricultural products during times when an employee is not working.

If an employer and employee have entered into a contract governing
the terms of the employment relationship the contract may provide
for an employment relationship other than employment-at-will.
Some contracts between employers and employees provide that an
employee will only be discharged "for cause". Cause may include
any violation of work rules, dishonesty, refusal to perform the
job or a host of other factors. A "for cause" contract simply
means that the termination of employment cannot be for any reason
but rather must be one for cause.

The general employment-at-will rule in Tennessee is also altered
for employers and employees who work in an unionized facility.
Most collective bargaining agreements between employers and their
employees' representative provide that discharge can only occur
for "just cause." If an employee believes he/she has been discharged
or disciplined unfairly, the contact will also provide for a grievance
and arbitration procedure the employee can utilize to seek assistance
from the union. If the employee pursues an action through the
grievance and arbitration procedure the hearing will be held by
a neutral arbitrator who favors neither the employer or the employee.

Another exception to an employment-at-will in Tennessee may be
recognized based on language within an employer's employee handbook.
In Tennessee, the general rule is that only when a personnel manual
or handbook makes certain "guarantees" to employees will the manual
be deemed part of the total employment contract. However, if the
manual or handbook contains specific language to disclaim guarantees,
the manual will not be deemed a part of the employment contract.
Although employee handbooks can afford employees certain guarantees,
if specifically spelled out, employers may utilize language disclaimers
or changing guarantees in the handbook.

Tennessee recognizes a public policy exception to the employment-at-will
rule when an employee is discharged for his/her refusal to violate
the law at the employer's request, for his/her refusal to remain
silent about a violation of the law, or for whistle-blowing. Generally,
an employee must show an "implied" threat of discharge for refusing
to remain quiet, and the "threat" must be more than the mere perception
of the employee.